Reasonably Ascertainable Reality

Thoughts and musings on current events and other random occurrences.

Location: South Jersey, United States

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

A link worth mentioning...

Via Environmental Republican, here is a link slamming the new Hillary book (subscription required).

These are curious words to be publishing in 2005, when Klein and the
world know that her book "Living History" was a phenomenal success and has
earned its author more than the $8 million in royalty payments advanced to her.
Curious and revealing. Because if any book in recent memory reads as though it
has been written out of greed — a greedy hunger to separate millions of
conservative book buyers from their hard-earned 25 bucks — it is Ed Klein's "The
Truth About Hillary." This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded
through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I
wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive
stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another

I'm glad to see more conservatives slamming this book but I think I should clarify my earlier rant on this book. This smear job goes way beyond politics. Bill Clinton raped Hillary to conceive Chelsea? It is that story that lead to my rant.
It was disheartening to me that, for many bloggers, the only criticism offered was that this book was bad politics and that it will backfire. No condemnation of the actual claim and how it had gone too far. I mean, drugs, crime, indiscretion in youth...all attack the politician, not their children, let alone reaching the heights of telling the child she was conceived from a rape.
That, to me, is hypocritical. Especially in the light of the ruckus over Mary Cheney, especially in the light of the ruckus over everything Howard Dean says. I don't defend Howard Dean, but you would think he was stabbing conservatives in the heart with his rhetoric. I don't hear 1/8th the criticism of this book as I've heard of how 'mean' and 'untruthful' Dean's comments were/are. Again, that to me is hypocritical. All the Hannity's of this world who blame the tone of incivility in Washington on liberals. They, are hyprocrites.

I'm glad to see some conservatives are seeing this book for what it is, and while I'm glad O'Reilly isn't having him on the show, if its anyone's motives I question, its his.

Environental Republican responds to my response:

Kerry shamelessly highlighted that Cheney is a lesbian simply to score
political points at the cost of bringing her sexual preference into the the
open.Was it known that Mary Cheney is gay prior to Kerry bringing it up? To
people who follow politics, yes it was. Did the majority of Americans know it?
No way.

All about Mary Cheney:

After graduating from Colorado College, Cheney went to work as a gay
community liaison for Coors Brewing Company, where she was instrumental in
ending a 20-year boycott by the gay community of that company. Cheney left
Coors in 2000 to work with her father and the Bush campaign. In 2002, Mary
Cheney served on the advisory board of the Republican Unity Coalition, a
gay-straight alliance formed within the Republican party to help increase
tolerance within the party for gays and lesbians, and others.

Exactly who is it that didn't know? Anyone even slightly interested in gay marriage would have known. The people that Kerry was supposedly trying to score political points with, those against gays and gay marriage, would certainly have known already. As I said over in his comments, I'm still willing to concede the point that Kerry was trying to score political points--with who, I have no idea. It still is a monumental difference between that and saying the daughter of a former President was concieved when he raped her mother, the former first lady.


Blogger Dave Justus said...

I think your definition of hypocritical is quite unfair.

Everyone, including you if you think about it just for a moment, spends more time critisizing their ideological opponants then their allies. That is human nature, but not necessarily hypocritical.

Especially in cases like Howard Dean. Whether or not you agree with Deans statements, he is directly critisizing Republicans/Conservatives. I would certainly expect Republicans and Conservatives to respond to that criticism. I would expect Democrats to respond to criticism of their party as well.

Defending someone else from an unjust attack is a nice thing to do. Failing to do so, even if you do not agree with that attack is not necessarily hypocritical however. There is no obligation for anyone to expend energy to denounce everything they think is wrong.

Personally, I think posts like this one of yours are mostly a waste of time. We can spend eternity confessing each others sins and showing how 'there side is worse than ours' and the other side is evil or hypocrits, or just plain bad.

That doesn't help or convince anyone. I usually prefer to just address the merits of an issue. It is fine to point out where an argument fails or why it is a logical fallacy. Stooping to the level of calling ones opponants names though is a waste of time.

1:22 PM  
Blogger Katinula said...

You both are misunderstanding me and that could possible be because I'm not the best writer, but I think I've explained before...what I find hyprocritical is not the criticism of one's opponents..that of course, is fair game. It is the absolute hysteria created around certain issues, Dean as an example, and then the ignoring of that issue when it pertains to the opponent...I think that is the definition of hypocrisy. For Dean's rhethoric, he is castigated and shredded by right wing bloggers and called on to apologize. For Kleins rhetoric, it is bad politics, no apology necessary. The meltdown over anonymous sources concerning the newsweek story is another example. Klein's source is anonymous. That IS hypocritical by some right wing press. I, by no means, meant to call all conservatives hypocrites, I dont throw that word around lighly, but for some yes, they are. I thought I'd cleared that up in my comments to you on the first post--exactly who I thought were the hyporites.
I post about things that I'm interested in. I don't necessarily like to get involved in defending a specific person against political opponents, I like focus on issues. But in this case, a completely sleazy account of rape and conception elevated this story to the top for me.
I don't feel its a waste of time though to point these things out.
And to claim that this point is the 'criticizing of one's ideological opponents' is pretty tepid. What does Hillary Clintons purported rape have to do with her political ideology?

2:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Find an Attorney